Letters to the Editor

Natural gas not as beneficial as it seems

To the Daily:

I would like to respond to the editorial that appeared in the Nov. 17th issue of the Daily, ("Cleaner Buses, 'U' should pursue pollution reduction"). First of all I go on record as being pro clean air. In so doing we need to explore the use of non-fossil fuels.

Natural gas as everyone knows is a fossil type fuel; thus you have pollution when it is utilized for fuel. While it is true that our new buses are still equipped with diesel engines, I believe that these will operate more efficiently than what we are now using. Without having exact figures on hand, the start up cost of utilizing natural gas as a fuel source for the buses is more than $1,000,000. Yes that's a lot of zeros!

Natural gas as a fuel source may be somewhat cleaner but who is going to pay for this investment into the concept of cleaner air? You are! I am not saying this to imply that the University is attempting to be frivolous with your money, they are not. This fuel source has been debated; the start up cost is somewhat prohibitive. This is largely due to the location and safety regulations involved with this type of fuel source.

When natural gas is stored as a fuel source, a separate fuel facility must be constructed away from other fuel sources, as well as vehicle and work site facilities. Transportation is at best "crowded" as it is with the storage of 40 buses and the University motor pool. Additionally, transportation services houses the repair and maintenance facilities for all University vehicles; unfortunately, the space just is not available for such a facility.

If this amount of money was available, and if we are to spend this additional money on the buses, would not improving present campus bus service be a better utilization of this money?

Ken Bowman

Parking and transportation services

Genetically modified food labeling is of importance to all

To the Daily:

I want to thank the Daily for Rob Goodspeed's viewpoint "Genetically Modified Foods Should Be Labeled" (11/16/00). As a future public health worker, I was ashamed of my ignorance concerning genetically modified (GM) foods and their widespread entry in today's food sources. As a consumer, however, I am outraged that the FDA and the U.S. government have not chosen to address this issue properly by thorough research before release of these "foods" into mainstream use and their lack of interest in labeling GM food products.

This article is the first report I have heard regarding the FDA recall of the Starlink corn crop earlier this month. The reports that these GM foods, some approved and unapproved, can induce allergic reactions constitute a number of potentially serious public health issues for all American consumers are also new. Also, the fact that the World Health Organization will be addressing a protein found in the Starlink corn crop during its upcoming allergenicity conference has not been widely broadcast. I want to know why I am just learning this information! These reports and inquiries should be a loud signal to world governments that GM foods are not the "answer to the world's prayers," but have the potential to harm consumers without proper research before widespread release.

It makes me wonder what the U.S. government has to gain by not sharing this information with the public. There is a lone congressman, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who introduced legislation to label all GM foods, but had to withdraw it for lack of support. I suspect his new proposal to fund research on the unknown allergens in GM products and the effects of GM fish in the wild will meet the same demise.

I think the food industry and the FDA should proceed with extreme caution concerning genetically modified foods. They shouldn't mess with Mother Nature, because she will eventually begin to fight back. Today its just allergic reactions; tomorrow it may be deaths.

Kimberly Coleman

School of public health

Affirmative action is flawed, will not increase diversity

To the Daily:

In the editorial "Diversity under attack," (11/16/00) the liberal staff of the Daily has made one more misinformed defense of affirmative action. For the sake of full and vigorous exchange of ideas, it's time to set the record straight.

First of all, let's be clear what we are talking about here. The University is not faced with a choice of having affirmative action or nothing at all. Instead of affirmative action, the University would likely implement the system currently in use in California and the flagship universities in Florida and Texas. This system stresses the educational background of the applicants, especially focusing on the amount of difficulty that he has overcome to achieve his grades and other achievements. On this point, the Daily has misconstrued the top ten percent system in Texas. Under the top ten percent system, any student who's in the top ten percent of his or her class is guaranteed a spot in the University of Texas University system, not at the flagship campus in Austin. This system does not hurt qualified applicants because a dog of average intelligence probably can get into a school like the University of Texas in the middle of nowhere.

Now, let me turn my attention to the two other major points the Daily editorial made. First, the Daily claims that diversity is injured once affirmative action is abolished. However, as the Daily itself recognizes, what is valuable about diversity is not the color of the students' skin, but rather the diverse range of ideas and backgrounds they bring to the vigorous academic environment of the University. Under a race neutral plan, the University is removed from the pressure of admitting a certain percentage of under-represented minorities, but instead can look at the applicants' files to evaluate what contributions they can make to the diverse ideas in a University. Following the abolishment of affirmative action, the University will be more, rather than less, diverse.

Second, the Daily claims the white applicants to the University are not really hurt by affirmative action because race is only one of multiple factors. However, under the admissions policy, race is considered as important as the standardized test score or high school grade point average. In other words, a minority student of substantially less qualifications may get in before a white student because of affirmative action. Under the law school admissions policy, a minority student can overcome a deficit of 0.3 on his college GPA and at least 5-6 points on the LSAT simply because of the color of his skin.

The Daily also claims factors such as GPA and SAT score inherently favor rich white kids. However, the Daily's claim is fundamentally underinclusive because there are black applicants to college who attended Andover High School in Bloomfield Hills and live in million-dollar homes, while there are also white kids who came from West Virginia and suffer from every disadvantage imaginable.

Moving away from a paradigm of race allows the admissions committee to look at the total picture and evaluate an applicant's potential for future success. This system also helps the poor black kid by distinguishing him from the rich black kid from Andover and give him more of a preference in the admissions process.

It's time for the University to face the music and design an admissions system that's fair to all.

Yingtao Ho

Law school